I can manual focus better than the 40D for absolute sharpness. On a 50/60/7/5D it should be better. Well worth the price of admission but it depends on what you shoot. I went with prime vs. 70-200 only because I would use it for birds and jets ( hit Maverics once). I have only regretted not going 70-200 a few times.Pop a 1.4x on and it is still good.

I don't know what wastegate rattle sounds like but the 300 F4 IS sounds like it would be comparable. From what I understand, that is normal.

The Noctilux is a cool lens, but not something that I'd want to use on a daily basis. The fact that it blocks out a big part of the RF is enough for me to not want one.

it's a pretty extreme lens... I'm sure there's application for it. however, i think it would have to be on a tripod with an unmoving object just because of your DoF is so narrow that if one of your hairs russle in the wind, you'll probably lose the point you were trying to focus on in the first place.

I can manual focus better than the 40D for absolute sharpness. On a 50/60/7/5D it should be better. Well worth the price of admission but it depends on what you shoot. I went with prime vs. 70-200 only because I would use it for birds and jets ( hit Maverics once). I have only regretted not going 70-200 a few times.Pop a 1.4x on and it is still good.

I don't know what wastegate rattle sounds like but the 300 F4 IS sounds like it would be comparable. From what I understand, that is normal.

I think your best bet since you say wildlife would be to aim for the 7D, it has a much faster auto focus then anything else you listed, and it's also sharper then the 5D mk II when cropped to 100%, so even if you're shooting off into the distance, you can zoom in a ton and nobody would know it was a crop. Yes the 5D mk II is good for that too, but you'd only want to crop to about 95% of the zoom since after that, things start to get a bit soft.

I have both cameras and have played with this crop ratio, and it's interesting to see the difference. That being said, if you're shooting wildlife in the woods or something and you need to use an ISO higher then about 640, then the 5D mk II might be the better option for you, although you sacrifice the faster focus.

it's a pretty extreme lens... I'm sure there's application for it. however, i think it would have to be on a tripod with an unmoving object just because of your DoF is so narrow that if one of your hairs russle in the wind, you'll probably lose the point you were trying to focus on in the first place.

Haha, the DOF is narrow, but it can definitely be used for street shooting.

The Noctilux that you really want is the pre-ASPH f/1 (last generation). The Noctilux has always been known as a low-light king, but what really made the last one interesting was the way it rendered the images. The new one has lost the character of the old lens.

The Noctilux that you really want is the pre-ASPH f/1 (last generation). The Noctilux has always been known as a low-light king, but what really made the last one interesting was the way it rendered the images. The new one has lost the character of the old lens.

I was just doing some reading on the old one, interesting to know that the new one isn't really reaching the benchmark...

unfortunate too, I assume at such an uncommon F stop, it doesn't come cheap....

I think your best bet since you say wildlife would be to aim for the 7D, it has a much faster auto focus then anything else you listed, and it's also sharper then the 5D mk II when cropped to 100%, so even if you're shooting off into the distance, you can zoom in a ton and nobody would know it was a crop. Yes the 5D mk II is good for that too, but you'd only want to crop to about 95% of the zoom since after that, things start to get a bit soft.

I have both cameras and have played with this crop ratio, and it's interesting to see the difference. That being said, if you're shooting wildlife in the woods or something and you need to use an ISO higher then about 640, then the 5D mk II might be the better option for you, although you sacrifice the faster focus.

and let's not forget, the 7D is a whole lot cheaper

I've tossed all those thoughts around in my head
and I've come up with the next body will be the 7D for AF or 5D II/III for low light/landscape. I will typically only do landscape or wildlife/planes. IQ and AF are very high on my list of needs, along with more pixels on the screen to check focus. The 240k on the 40D sucks big time.

I've tossed all those thoughts around in my head
and I've come up with the next body will be the 7D for AF or 5D II/III for low light/landscape. I will typically only do landscape or wildlife/planes. IQ and AF are very high on my list of needs, along with more pixels on the screen to check focus. The 240k on the 40D sucks big time.

yeah, i'm curious to see what features the next camera will have if it's the 5D III or if they do another D model and keep the 5D mkII around for a little longer.

but the rear display definitely spoils the user... It's no longer just for a review, it's a decision maker and deal breaker for a shot.

I shot a couple of times with my ex girlfriends old D80 with the 240k, and a lot of the time you just go "oh... well looks acceptable, i'll see when i get home"

Depending on condition, the pre-ASPH Noctilux can run you anywhere from $5500-$7000 (kind of a stretch).

I'll just use that money towards a down payment on the motorcycle i want instead....

then be satisfied with my current toys for that price.

The problem i have with paying that sort of money, it better be on the camera all the time, not just used for specific occasions like low lighting or artistic shots. It just seems wasted on that. I do understand it is a beautifull lens and the results are unique, but for that kind of money, i just don't see the value.

I'll just use that money towards a down payment on the motorcycle i want instead....

then be satisfied with my current toys for that price.

The problem i have with paying that sort of money, it better be on the camera all the time, not just used for specific occasions like low lighting or artistic shots. It just seems wasted on that. I do understand it is a beautifull lens and the results are unique, but for that kind of money, i just don't see the value.

As a whole, Leica prices are much more than what most people can justify. That's why Leica is for a niche market.

I agree with you, though. The Noctilux is expensive and to be honest, I don't know how often I would shoot with it, wide open. The 50/Summilux is a much more reasonable lens.